Further logic trouble for evolution

[EarlyActs]

I would think the eye would pose a greater problem to explain than the chin for evolutionists.

It did for Darwin, and bees did too. He called them an abomination.

 

[EarlyActs]

Well of course I do. Let's start with a day as a thousand years. And - not to offend - common sense.

God did not create galaxies in a few days, and the universe is NOT only 6,000 years old.

Do you have a text based (linguistic) reason about the days and do you have a based presupposition that says it could not be done quickly?

 

[EarlyActs]

why ask me when there's an article to read? didn't it link?

It's from the UK Independent magazine, I think.

 

[prism]

It did for Darwin, and bees did too. He called them an abomination.

What about the penguins of Antarctica with their migratory trek? Adelie penguins, for example, have been tracked traveling around 8,000 miles in a circular pattern, sticking close to the expanding sea ice. Other species, like Emperor penguins, may travel shorter distances, around 50-120 km (31-75 miles), to reach their breeding colonies. Some penguins, like Magellanic penguins, migrate north during the local winter, reaching as far as Peru and Brazil, covering distances of up to 4,000 miles.

 

[John Bauer]

Why ask me when there's an article to read? Didn't it link?

It did link, yes—Max Telford, "The Unique Human Body Part That Evolution Cannot Explain," MSN News, July 25, 2025. And that unique body part is, of course, the human chin.

But Telford did not say that this represents a "logical" problem for evolution.

He said that scientists are "puzzled" by the uniqueness of the chin, that we are still "searching for answers," that we have a variety of competing "theories," and primarily that "in the absence of convergent evolution we have no sensible way of testing [those theories]." And he closed by saying that some things may be destined to remain a "mystery." I understand every one of those statements, and none of them challenge or weaken evolution.

So, the question falls upon you, since you were the one who identified it as a "logical" problem. Where does the logic break down?

 

[EarlyActs]

What about the penguins of Antarctica with their migratory trek? Adelie penguins, for example, have been tracked traveling around 8,000 miles in a circular pattern, sticking close to the expanding sea ice. Other species, like Emperor penguins, may travel shorter distances, around 50-120 km (31-75 miles), to reach their breeding colonies. Some penguins, like Magellanic penguins, migrate north during the local winter, reaching as far as Peru and Brazil, covering distances of up to 4,000 miles.

Continue on. I don’t know what dot you have connected.

 

[EarlyActs]

It did link, yes—Max Telford, "The Unique Human Body Part That Evolution Cannot Explain," MSN News, July 25, 2025. And that unique body part is, of course, the human chin.

But Telford did not say that this represents a "logical" problem for evolution.

He said that scientists are "puzzled" by the uniqueness of the chin, that we are still "searching for answers," that we have a variety of competing "theories," and primarily that "in the absence of convergent evolution we have no sensible way of testing [those theories]." And he closed by saying that some things may be destined to remain a "mystery." I understand every one of those statements, and none of them challenge or weaken evolution.

So, the question falls upon you, since you were the one who identified it as a "logical" problem. Where does the logic break down?

There is no relevance. Evolution is the weakest logic and support anyone ever tried. Darwin bocked completing it for over a decade bc a derangement syndrome for a religion , like the Huxley’s had, is not science. We were created complete and thriving at the beginning. ‘Swarming with swarms’. There is no development of species bc mutations cause deterioration, as shown by the book analogy to DNA given by Dr J Seegert, of Starting Point.

So the articles ‘mystery’ is laughable bc there is no such process. It’s made up. These people want us to worship their intelligence when there is none.

Darwin didn’t even like the direction it was going—racist preference for the strongest species. That got shushed quickly at the publishers! Prob bc he took such loving care of Jennie. I would have dumped the theory for the same contradictory reason. Like a mental illness.

The text that reported the complete thriving creation to us had few custodians in those early millennia; and we now know the cross-support for many of its features in the Walam Olam tablets found in ancient New Jersey , having traveled the Asian-American land bridge. (Genesis Apologetics). We need to remember when we read Gen 1: who was there to speak to Adam what happened prior to him, and that he could have challenged it.

Meanwhile the weightiest points of evolution have the most ridiculous amounts of support, with people claiming absolute certainty about things Bs of years ago, but fully doubting stretchy collagen samples known to be mere thousands. Unbelievable Indoctrination, but we were warned by Romans 1.

Subscribe to Evolution News; the collapse is gaining speed, along with the collapse of many other modern frauds called science.

When people fail to believe that God has loved us and given Himself up for us, they sure go all out to unalive Him.

 

[John Bauer]

EarlyActs said, "Here is a logical problem for evolution," linking to an article that discussed how the human chin is an anatomical feature unique to only humans.

I asked, "Exactly how is that a logical problem for evolution? Where does the logic break down?"

"Evolution is the weakest logic," he replied.

Clearly, he didn't answer the question but merely reasserted his claim in a slightly different way. So, I guess logic is not one of the problems that evolution has.

---

Delayed publication: The reasons for Darwin delaying the publication of his book for over two decades are well documented and had nothing to do with a "derangement syndrome," which is uncharitable and empty rhetoric. He delayed publication because he was intellectually cautious, scientifically meticulous, and had tremendous anxiety about criticism from his peers and societal backlash in Victorian England's religious climate. It should also be noted that Darwin didn't merely shelve his notebooks and monograph. He spent those two decades gathering evidence and refining his arguments.

Personally, Darwin was conflict-averse, dreading controversy and public scrutiny, as his correspondence reveals. His delay was not because he doubted the scientific theory for the patterns he observed, but because he understood the social and personal cost of challenging deeply held beliefs. He also had concerns about how it might impact his marriage, given that Emma was deeply religious with traditional Christian convictions. It was a letter from Alfred Wallace in June of 1858 that forced his hand; he feared being scooped after decades of private labor.

• Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols. (Dodo Press, 2007).
• Frederick Burkhardt, ed., Charles Darwin's Letters: A Selection 1825–1859 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
• Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin, 3rd ed. (1970; W. W. Norton & Company, 2001).

Favored races: Racial preference was not the trajectory of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. That path belonged to Herbert Spencer and especially Francis Galton (1850s–1890s), who extended Malthusian and hereditarian logic to human social traits and advocated controlled breeding of "desirable" people—a line of thought that gave rise to the formal eugenics movement by the early 20th century.

Darwin, by contrast, would later write critically against the direction in which they were heading, arguing that natural selection doesn't license social policy without grave ethical consequences. He rejected polygenism—the claim that different human “races” arose from separate origins—and affirmed monogenism, the unity of all humans in a shared ancestry.

Incidentally, the term "race" in Darwin's era was a broad, scientific term for distinct populations or varieties within a species, often applied to plants and animals (e.g., races of pigeons). The phrase "favored races" simply meant "better-adapted varieties," not ethnic groups. But modern readers often project contemporary racial categories onto 19th-century language—something I suspect EarlyActs is doing here.

Edited to add: Notice that Webster's Dictionary (1828), when defining "race," does not include anything about people being identified as distinct on account of supposed physical or genetic traits. That is what it means to us now; that is not what it meant when Darwin used it.

---

We were created complete and thriving at the beginning. "Swarming with swarms." There is no development of species because mutations cause deterioration, as shown by the book analogy to DNA given by Dr J Seegert of Starting Point. So, the article's "mystery" is laughable because there is no such process. It's made up. These people want us to worship their intelligence, when there is none. ... The text that reported the complete thriving creation to us had few custodians in those early millennia.

That is definitely one interpretation. It is utterly riddled with problems—exegetical, theological, historical, philosophical, and scientific—but, yeah, it's one interpretation.

That got shushed quickly at the publishers! Probably because he took such loving care of Jennie.

Who is Jennie?

And we now know the cross-support for many of its features in the Walam Olam tablets found in ancient New Jersey, having traveled the Asian-American land bridge. (Genesis Apologetics).

Among professional linguists, archaeologists, and Lenape cultural authorities, the Walam Olum is regarded as a 19th-century fabrication by the eccentric naturalist and antiquarian C. S. Rafinesque (1783-1840). "Ethnographic studies in the 1980s and analysis in the 1990s of Rafinesque's manuscripts have produced significant evidence that the document may be a hoax" (Wikipedia). The case against its authenticity rests on multiple, mutually reinforcing lines of evidence widely available and accessible on the internet.

Meanwhile the weightiest points of evolution have the most ridiculous amounts of support, ...

That is not how theories work. Creationist sources like Answers in Genesis typically represent evolution as a theory in search of observable evidence to support it (and describe its proponents as pulling mental gymnastics to make that evidence fit). But this flips the reality on its head—literally, for we don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it.

I am beginning to wonder if you ever get anything right. I have never encountered someone who so badly misunderstands an idea and its history as you do with respect to evolution.

 

[QVQ]

The Theory: Prokaryotes mutated and became eukaryotes.
The Darwinist's Lament "We know prokaryotes evolved at least once" Same with angiosperms, at least once.

Farmers have been manipulating genetics, first through breeding, then through chemicals (colchozine) and finally GMO.
Mutations are 1) sterile (won't come true from seed) 2) not viable (can't survive in the wild) 3) revert to type (sheds mutation in a few generations)

A farmer has a big field of cannola. He wants to kill all the weeds with chemicals but not the cannola.
The Industry genetically mutated cannola to be pesticide resistant cannola (GMO, genetically modified organism)
Cannola fields could be sprayed with chemicals. The weed were killed and cannola survived.
That is a major good mutation for Cannola. It provided cannola with a big evolutionary plus.

GMO cannola is a crop in a cannolla field. GMO cannola is a major weed in a wheat fields.
GMO cannola was Super Weed. It was artificially mutated to resist modern chemicals
The seed was transported by truck. The trucks leaked seed on highways, gas stations and cannola appeared everywere.

It appeared GMO Cannol went wild, It was reported to 1) come true from seed passing the mutation along. 2) could survive in the wild.

This GMO Cannola could prove Darwin's Theory. The first proof as all of evolution proof is circumstantial and speculative.

The US Government conducted field studies, growing GMO cannola for several generations in wild condition.
The study was published in March 2025
GMO Canola
1) Fertile (could pass on the mutation )
2) Viable (could establish in the wild)
3) GMO Canola shed the mutation within a few generations (revert to type)
After a few generations GMO Canola had shed the transgene of the mutation and reverted to genetically original Canola.
Evolution by genetic mutation Failed.
No Evolution.

 

[prism]

Continue on. I don’t know what dot you have connected.

It's connected to you bees' post #21

 

[EarlyActs]

EarlyActs said, "Here is a logical problem for evolution," linking to an article that discussed how the human chin is an anatomical feature unique to only humans.

I asked, "Exactly how is that a logical problem for evolution? Where does the logic break down?"

"Evolution is the weakest logic," he replied.

Clearly, he didn't answer the question but merely reasserted his claim in a slightly different way. So, I guess logic is not one of the problems that evolution has.

---

Delayed publication: The reasons for Darwin delaying the publication of his book for over two decades are well documented and had nothing to do with a "derangement syndrome," which is uncharitable and empty rhetoric. He delayed publication because he was intellectually cautious, scientifically meticulous, and had tremendous anxiety about criticism from his peers and societal backlash in Victorian England's religious climate. It should also be noted that Darwin didn't merely shelve his notebooks and monograph. He spent those two decades gathering evidence and refining his arguments.

Personally, Darwin was conflict-averse, dreading controversy and public scrutiny, as his correspondence reveals. His delay was not because he doubted the scientific theory for the patterns he observed, but because he understood the social and personal cost of challenging deeply held beliefs. He also had concerns about how it might impact his marriage, given that Emma was deeply religious with traditional Christian convictions. It was a letter from Alfred Wallace in June of 1858 that forced his hand; he feared being scooped after decades of private labor.

• Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols. (Dodo Press, 2007).
• Frederick Burkhardt, ed., Charles Darwin's Letters: A Selection 1825–1859 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
• Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin, 3rd ed. (1970; W. W. Norton & Company, 2001).

Favored races: Racial preference was not the trajectory of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. That path belonged to Herbert Spencer and especially Francis Galton (1850s–1890s), who extended Malthusian and hereditarian logic to human social traits and advocated controlled breeding of "desirable" people—a line of thought that gave rise to the formal eugenics movement by the early 20th century.

Darwin, by contrast, would later write critically against the direction in which they were heading, arguing that natural selection doesn't license social policy without grave ethical consequences. He rejected polygenism—the claim that different human “races” arose from separate origins—and affirmed monogenism, the unity of all humans in a shared ancestry.

Incidentally, the term "race" in Darwin's era was a broad, scientific term for distinct populations or varieties within a species, often applied to plants and animals (e.g., races of pigeons). The phrase "favored races" simply meant "better-adapted varieties," not ethnic groups. But modern readers often project contemporary racial categories onto 19th-century language—something I suspect EarlyActs is doing here.

Edited to add: Notice that Webster's Dictionary (1828), when defining "race," does not include anything about people being identified as distinct on account of supposed physical or genetic traits. That is what it means to us now; that is not what it meant when Darwin used it.

---

That is definitely one interpretation. It is utterly riddled with problems—exegetical, theological, historical, philosophical, and scientific—but, yeah, it's one interpretation.




Who is Jennie?




Among professional linguists, archaeologists, and Lenape cultural authorities, the Walam Olum is regarded as a 19th-century fabrication by the eccentric naturalist and antiquarian C. S. Rafinesque (1783-1840). "Ethnographic studies in the 1980s and analysis in the 1990s of Rafinesque's manuscripts have produced significant evidence that the document may be a hoax" (Wikipedia). The case against its authenticity rests on multiple, mutually reinforcing lines of evidence widely available and accessible on the internet.




That is not how theories work. Creationist sources like Answers in Genesis typically represent evolution as a theory in search of observable evidence to support it (and describe its proponents as pulling mental gymnastics to make that evidence fit). But this flips the reality on its head—literally, for we don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it.

I am beginning to wonder if you ever get anything right. I have never encountered someone who so badly misunderstands an idea and its history as you do with respect to evolution.

re misunderstanding evolution
You are then afraid to review Dr. J Seegert on the subject of evolution and mutation. I have referenced and illustrated it 3x now and you are silent.

 

[EarlyActs]

EarlyActs said, "Here is a logical problem for evolution," linking to an article that discussed how the human chin is an anatomical feature unique to only humans.

I asked, "Exactly how is that a logical problem for evolution? Where does the logic break down?"

"Evolution is the weakest logic," he replied.

Clearly, he didn't answer the question but merely reasserted his claim in a slightly different way. So, I guess logic is not one of the problems that evolution has.

---

Delayed publication: The reasons for Darwin delaying the publication of his book for over two decades are well documented and had nothing to do with a "derangement syndrome," which is uncharitable and empty rhetoric. He delayed publication because he was intellectually cautious, scientifically meticulous, and had tremendous anxiety about criticism from his peers and societal backlash in Victorian England's religious climate. It should also be noted that Darwin didn't merely shelve his notebooks and monograph. He spent those two decades gathering evidence and refining his arguments.

Personally, Darwin was conflict-averse, dreading controversy and public scrutiny, as his correspondence reveals. His delay was not because he doubted the scientific theory for the patterns he observed, but because he understood the social and personal cost of challenging deeply held beliefs. He also had concerns about how it might impact his marriage, given that Emma was deeply religious with traditional Christian convictions. It was a letter from Alfred Wallace in June of 1858 that forced his hand; he feared being scooped after decades of private labor.

• Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols. (Dodo Press, 2007).
• Frederick Burkhardt, ed., Charles Darwin's Letters: A Selection 1825–1859 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
• Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin, 3rd ed. (1970; W. W. Norton & Company, 2001).

Favored races: Racial preference was not the trajectory of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. That path belonged to Herbert Spencer and especially Francis Galton (1850s–1890s), who extended Malthusian and hereditarian logic to human social traits and advocated controlled breeding of "desirable" people—a line of thought that gave rise to the formal eugenics movement by the early 20th century.

Darwin, by contrast, would later write critically against the direction in which they were heading, arguing that natural selection doesn't license social policy without grave ethical consequences. He rejected polygenism—the claim that different human “races” arose from separate origins—and affirmed monogenism, the unity of all humans in a shared ancestry.

Incidentally, the term "race" in Darwin's era was a broad, scientific term for distinct populations or varieties within a species, often applied to plants and animals (e.g., races of pigeons). The phrase "favored races" simply meant "better-adapted varieties," not ethnic groups. But modern readers often project contemporary racial categories onto 19th-century language—something I suspect EarlyActs is doing here.

Edited to add: Notice that Webster's Dictionary (1828), when defining "race," does not include anything about people being identified as distinct on account of supposed physical or genetic traits. That is what it means to us now; that is not what it meant when Darwin used it.

---

That is definitely one interpretation. It is utterly riddled with problems—exegetical, theological, historical, philosophical, and scientific—but, yeah, it's one interpretation.




Who is Jennie?




Among professional linguists, archaeologists, and Lenape cultural authorities, the Walam Olum is regarded as a 19th-century fabrication by the eccentric naturalist and antiquarian C. S. Rafinesque (1783-1840). "Ethnographic studies in the 1980s and analysis in the 1990s of Rafinesque's manuscripts have produced significant evidence that the document may be a hoax" (Wikipedia). The case against its authenticity rests on multiple, mutually reinforcing lines of evidence widely available and accessible on the internet.




That is not how theories work. Creationist sources like Answers in Genesis typically represent evolution as a theory in search of observable evidence to support it (and describe its proponents as pulling mental gymnastics to make that evidence fit). But this flips the reality on its head—literally, for we don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it.

I am beginning to wonder if you ever get anything right. I have never encountered someone who so badly misunderstands an idea and its history as you do with respect to evolution.

The view of the British team that made the historical drama CREATION was that he was angry that the weakest were not helped, like his help for Jennie the orangutan he observed at length. See the picnic scene about the 'wastefulness' of nature. I thought the pastor had the proper answer, although it was delivered in a palid tone. CD realized too late that marrying a cousin was not a strengthening step.

He called bees an abomination. If your theory fails, change your theory but don't use religious/theological terms for facts that conflict with your theory. Sinks your credibility.

There is nothing riddled with problems about 'swarming with swarms' as used about initial life. In fact, it solves the mass of people who appear shortly in early Genesis making cities etc.; others were created initially, but the narrative is only about Adam and descendants. Likewise, many distant objects were there from the 'spreading out' but the narrative is only about the local. These two proportions of interest are a similar pattern, just like how the genealogies are only concerned with the first son, and hardly with the rest.

The frontispiece of the original OS had a line about the emergence of the favored races. Even in CREATION this fact is obscured by an oblique camera angle, almost illegible. Many realms of science had far too limited knowledge for the trajectories they announced.

I don't see your differentiation about race then and now. It does not seem to have any substance. I have not seen the expression used interchangeably for variety. 19th century hymns referred to many races of mankind in continuity with today.

 

[EarlyActs]

It's connected to you bees' post #21

I think you mean well, I just don't know what I'm supposed to connect between migration and eye/bee complexity. Maybe the complexity of bee travel?

 

[John Bauer]

You are then afraid to review Dr. Seegert on the subject of evolution and mutation. I have referenced and illustrated it three times now and you are silent.

I am silent for two reasons. First, it's because I'm ignoring anything to do with Seegert, whose work is fraught with errors, as I said elsewhere a week ago (here). He is "about as trustworthy as AI models (e.g., Gemini)," I said.

Second, it's because I ignore any claim you make about what someone has said. Why? Because I've tried validating your claims before about what other people have said, only to discover that your claim was inaccurate or completely invented. Thus, I cannot trust your recollection of anything Seegert may have said. If you want me to interact with something specific that he said, give me a properly cited quote (so I can verify it) and I will do so.

 

[EarlyActs]

I am silent for two reasons. First, it's because I'm ignoring anything to do with Seegert, whose work is fraught with errors, as I said elsewhere a week ago (here). He is "about as trustworthy as AI models (e.g., Gemini)," I said.

Second, it's because I ignore any claim you make about what someone has said. Why? Because I've tried validating your claims before about what other people have said, only to discover that your claim was inaccurate or completely invented. Thus, I cannot trust your recollection of anything Seegert may have said. If you want me to interact with something specific that he said, give me a properly cited quote (so I can verify it) and I will do so.

Unless you show clearly why his 3 forms of copying are mistaken, you’re the one that has the logic problem. Yours is ‘riddled with philosophic, linguistic, theological, historical and contextual problems’—like the force of ‘swarming with swarms’ which is immediate, complete, thriving life not found elsewhere. Nor evolutionary.

The 3 ‘copying errors’ were explained at his recent Apologetics Forum of Snohomish Co (WA) series, which is not what matters bc it’s his core refutation in all his materials, making your point exactly what you accuse me of doing. (Misguided, misrepresenting, etc). He has a Ph.D in these things. It’s on YouTube; the organization is called The Starting Point. Google Search

 

[EarlyActs]

The three forms of copying Seeger and many others address are:
Doubling: bs becomes bbs
Deleting: all cs are removed
Interchanging: all ds become fs and all fs become ds

Mutations cause deterioration.

 

[CrowCross]

Mutations cause deterioration.

Mutations are know to cause the loss of information. The blind cave fish is an example.

Evolutionism hasn't shown where information can be increased and added to over and over again via a means of randomness and selection to the point a new body part, organ, appendage, system is realized. Evo's only assume this can happen.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't know if I have explained my view of the custody of Genesis. I think it might help make the picture more clear.

The verbal description of the 6 days is given to Adam shortly after. You are reading Adam's verbal record, not an omniscient inspiration voice centuries later.

Due to the overlap of Adam and Noah, there are few custodians of the verbal record.

The tribe used an organized form for most of it (cf Cassuto) in which there were 'prompts' or section titles. The section title was called out by the mentor. The student would recite:
the section title
the pre-existing situation
the new action
the summary statement

This gets disrupted in the cataclysm section, often getting started but not wrapped up as tidily and using an alphabetic structure in which the 2nd half is reverse-alphabetic order.

The custody is a bit unclear right after the cataclysm, but when Abraham comes on the scene, it tightens. With Jacob there are now several sons maintaining the recitation. The youngest had the memory advantage of hearing it the most.

Joseph also learned that the Egyptian glyph system was far more limited than the use of phonic sound represented by letters, as the Hittites were doing. He worked out a Hebrew alphabet and writing with many similarities. The verbal record became written at his time, and Moses took over at some point in the late narrative of Joseph.

Parallel to NT:
Many people have the idea that Scripture was produced through a kind of 'possession' of a person later and remote to the scene. We even see this with the view that the NT canon was established later, still being debated 4 centuries out. But like the immediate verbal custody of Genesis, the beginning of the NT was a verbal transmission. There was the expounding on about 20 OT passages for 40 days. We find these in Peter's teaching in Acts 2--4 and some in 9-11. These usages were taught in person by Christ just like God explained to Adam about time before he existed.

The Genesis POV
What Adam described, when the Hebrew word choice is examined, is about the local system, and only objects nearby that moved enough to be 'signals' and time-markers. The distant worlds get scant mention, only the term 'kavov' in v16, and in a dangling phrase. The English term 'heaven' is a huge barrier to understanding. Genesis has this way of focusing on a theme vs less relevant material many times.

 

[EarlyActs]

EarlyActs said, "Here is a logical problem for evolution," linking to an article that discussed how the human chin is an anatomical feature unique to only humans.

I asked, "Exactly how is that a logical problem for evolution? Where does the logic break down?"

"Evolution is the weakest logic," he replied.

Clearly, he didn't answer the question but merely reasserted his claim in a slightly different way. So, I guess logic is not one of the problems that evolution has.

---

Delayed publication: The reasons for Darwin delaying the publication of his book for over two decades are well documented and had nothing to do with a "derangement syndrome," which is uncharitable and empty rhetoric. He delayed publication because he was intellectually cautious, scientifically meticulous, and had tremendous anxiety about criticism from his peers and societal backlash in Victorian England's religious climate. It should also be noted that Darwin didn't merely shelve his notebooks and monograph. He spent those two decades gathering evidence and refining his arguments.

Personally, Darwin was conflict-averse, dreading controversy and public scrutiny, as his correspondence reveals. His delay was not because he doubted the scientific theory for the patterns he observed, but because he understood the social and personal cost of challenging deeply held beliefs. He also had concerns about how it might impact his marriage, given that Emma was deeply religious with traditional Christian convictions. It was a letter from Alfred Wallace in June of 1858 that forced his hand; he feared being scooped after decades of private labor.

• Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols. (Dodo Press, 2007).
• Frederick Burkhardt, ed., Charles Darwin's Letters: A Selection 1825–1859 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
• Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin, 3rd ed. (1970; W. W. Norton & Company, 2001).

Favored races: Racial preference was not the trajectory of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. That path belonged to Herbert Spencer and especially Francis Galton (1850s–1890s), who extended Malthusian and hereditarian logic to human social traits and advocated controlled breeding of "desirable" people—a line of thought that gave rise to the formal eugenics movement by the early 20th century.

Darwin, by contrast, would later write critically against the direction in which they were heading, arguing that natural selection doesn't license social policy without grave ethical consequences. He rejected polygenism—the claim that different human “races” arose from separate origins—and affirmed monogenism, the unity of all humans in a shared ancestry.

Incidentally, the term "race" in Darwin's era was a broad, scientific term for distinct populations or varieties within a species, often applied to plants and animals (e.g., races of pigeons). The phrase "favored races" simply meant "better-adapted varieties," not ethnic groups. But modern readers often project contemporary racial categories onto 19th-century language—something I suspect EarlyActs is doing here.

Edited to add: Notice that Webster's Dictionary (1828), when defining "race," does not include anything about people being identified as distinct on account of supposed physical or genetic traits. That is what it means to us now; that is not what it meant when Darwin used it.

---

That is definitely one interpretation. It is utterly riddled with problems—exegetical, theological, historical, philosophical, and scientific—but, yeah, it's one interpretation.




Who is Jennie?




Among professional linguists, archaeologists, and Lenape cultural authorities, the Walam Olum is regarded as a 19th-century fabrication by the eccentric naturalist and antiquarian C. S. Rafinesque (1783-1840). "Ethnographic studies in the 1980s and analysis in the 1990s of Rafinesque's manuscripts have produced significant evidence that the document may be a hoax" (Wikipedia). The case against its authenticity rests on multiple, mutually reinforcing lines of evidence widely available and accessible on the internet.




That is not how theories work. Creationist sources like Answers in Genesis typically represent evolution as a theory in search of observable evidence to support it (and describe its proponents as pullinS mental gymnastics to make that evidence fit). But this flips the reality on its head—literally, for we don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it.

I am beginning to wonder if you ever get anything right. I have never encountered someone who so badly misunderstands an idea and its history as you do with respect to evolution.

The Walam Olam differs from Scripture in several ways. The major one is saying an evil god caused the cataclysm. A fabrication would try to be exactly alike. See Lewis' 'the myth that became fact.'

Your last line needs to be removed for being insulting and disrespectful, which was a huge issue about you 2 weeks ago, though not about others, as you can see.

 

[EarlyActs]

The renegade (from her Christian roots) novelist E George’s lover, Spencer, coined the expression ‘survival of the fittest’ as the modus operandi of nature. There was some anger that this was the case, especially in Darwin’ thinking, but it is the vanity to which nature has been subject since the revolt of mankind, Rom 8.

It was used by the 19th century intellectuals around the destructive Miss George to invent an end to Christian faith. It became the MO of ‘young Germany’ under Haeckl’s validation. They saw themselves as the purest form of nature at work in the world.

So there is substantial conflict between this core evolutionary doctrine and Christian faith. Even E Burke’s chapter on this in The Day The Universe Changed says as much.